Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01735/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01735-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jason Roth, an Arizona resident, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Adtran, Inc., an Alabama corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. CV13-1735-PHX DGC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to transfer venue. Doc. 10. The motion has been 

fully briefed. Docs.11, 12, 13. No party has requested oral argument. For reasons stated 

below, the Court will deny the motion. 

I. Background. 

 Between 2004 and 2011, Plaintiff Jason Roth was a technical writer for employer 

Defendant Adtran, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Hunstville, Alabama. Doc. 1 at 2; Doc. 11 at 2. Plaintiff lived and worked in Arizona 

during the relevant time period, and was the only Technical Writer employed by 

Defendant who lived and worked outside of Huntsville. Doc. 11 at 2. In or around June 

2009, Plaintiff asserts he was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, a condition that he contends 

substantially limits his ability to work. Doc. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges he requested 

accommodations for his condition from Defendant in 2009, but that his requests were 

ignored. Id. at 5. 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 In the summer of 2010, Plaintiff initiated charges against Defendant with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on the basis of failure to 

accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Id. Plaintiff 

subsequently filed a second EEOC complaint on January 3, 2011, and a third on April 8, 

2011, after his position with Defendant in Phoenix was eliminated and his employment 

terminated. Id. at 8-9. On October 12, 2012 the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination 

with respect to all three complaints, and on June 20, 2013, the EEOC issued Plaintiff a 

Notice of Right to Sue with respect to each of Plaintiff’s charges. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed 

his complaint against Defendant on August 22, 2013. Doc. 1. The complaint asserts 

claims for discrimination under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, and retaliation in violation 

of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203. Doc. 1 at 10-12. 

II. Analysis. 

 Defendant asks the Court to transfer this case to the Northern District of Alabama, 

Northeast Division. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) authorizes such a transfer if the action could 

have been brought in the Northern District of Alabama and “transfer is warranted by the 

convenience of parties and witnesses and promotes the interests of justice.” Van Dusen v. 

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964), superseded by statute on other grounds. “[T]he 

purpose of [section 1404(a)] is to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to 

protect litigants and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Id.

(citation omitted). 

 The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Northern 

District of Alabama. The Court must determine whether Defendant has made “a strong 

showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting [Plaintiff's] choice of forum.” Decker 

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). This 

determination requires the weighing of several factors: (1) Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, 

(2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses, (3) the ease of access to sources of 

proof, (4) the presence of a forum selection clause, (5) the state that is most familiar with 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the governing law, (6) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and 

executed, (7) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (8) the availability of 

compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, (9) the 

relevant public policy of the forum state, and (10) the differences in the costs of litigation 

in the two forums. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 

495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th 

Cir. 1988); Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. 

 A. Plaintiff’s choice of forum. 

 Plaintiff elected to file his claim in the District of Arizona. There is ordinarily “a 

strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum,” such that great weight and 

substantial deference is generally afforded to a plaintiff’s choice. Piper Aircraft Co. v. 

Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 265 (1981); see also Sinochem Intern. Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern. 

Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 423 (2007); Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 

1987); Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. This factor weighs strongly against transfer. 

 B. Convenience of the parties and witnesses. 

 Convenience of parties and witnesses are critical factors for a court considering a 

motion to transfer, but a transfer which “merely shifts the inconvenience from one party 

to another” is not appropriate. Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1044 (D. Ariz. 

2004). 

 Plaintiff is an Arizona resident. Doc. 12 at 4. Defendant is incorporated in 

Delaware and headquartered in Alabama. Doc. 11 at 2. Between the two parties, transfer 

of venue from Arizona to Alabama would inconvenience Plaintiff, while increasing 

convenience only for Defendant. Further, Defendant had an office in Phoenix and 

continues to do business in Arizona, including hiring new employees for its Arizona 

office. Doc. 12 at 8, Ex. 5. Given this connection with Arizona, any inconvenience 

caused by litigating in this Court would be less than that suffered by Plaintiff if the case 

were transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Defendant’s key witnesses all reside in Alabama. Doc. 11 at 5. Plaintiff claims, 

however, that at least four of his witnesses are in Arizona. Doc. 12 at 4. The 

inconvenience to witnesses, therefore, appears to be equal in both venues. Given that 

Plaintiff would be disadvantaged more than Defendant by litigating outside of his forum 

of choice, and that both sides have witnesses who would be inconvenienced by the other 

party’s choice, this factor weighs against transfer. 

 C. Ease of access to sources of proof. 

 Personnel files, policies, performance evaluations, pay records and other workrelated documents are located in Alabama. Doc. 11 at 6. Plaintiff’s medical records, 

related to his condition, are located in Arizona. Doc. 12 at 6. This factor weighs neither 

for nor against transfer, particularly in light of the fact that “documentary evidence is 

substantially less costly to produce than witness testimony.” Berry v. Potter, CIV 04-

2922 PHX RCB, 2006 WL 335841 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2006).

 D. Existence of a forum selection clause. 

 There is no forum selection clause. This factor is neutral. 

 E. The state most familiar with the governing law. 

 Plaintiff asserts claims under the ADA, a federal law. Either state is adequately 

situated to rule on these claims. This factor is neutral. 

 F. Where relevant agreements were negotiated and executed. 

 Communications between Plaintiff and Defendant were all telephonic or 

electronic, and could thus be said to have taken place in either Arizona or Alabama. 

Hisun Motors Corp., U.S.A. v. Auto. Testing & Dev. Servs., Inc., CV11-1918-PHX DGC, 

2011 WL 5290149 (D. Ariz. Nov. 1, 2011). All accommodation and personnel decisions, 

however, occurred in Alabama because that is where Defendant’s headquarters and 

management are located. Doc. 11 at 5. This factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 

 G. The parties’ contacts with the chosen forum. 

 Plaintiff is an Arizona resident. Defendant is registered to do business in Arizona 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and, during the relevant time period, employed an Arizona resident in an Arizona office. 

Doc. 12 at 7, ex. 3. Additionally, Defendant communicated extensively with Plaintiff in 

Arizona regarding the subject at issue in the complaint, Doc. 12 at 8, and received 

communications from the EEOC regarding the same at its Phoenix office, Doc. 12 at 8, 

ex. 2, 4, 5. This factor weighs against transfer. 

 H. The availability of compulsory process. 

 Defendant asserts that Arizona is an inconvenient forum for relevant management 

and other employees who live and work in Alabama. But any inconvenience to witnesses 

still employed by the company carries little weight, as this court presumes Defendant can 

compel their attendance at trial. Berry, No. CIV 04-2922 PHX RCB, 2006 WL 335841, at 

*5. 

 Two non-party witnesses – both former employees of Defendant – are located 

outside the subpoena power of this Court for trial purposes. See Doc. 11 at 4; FRCP 

45(b)(2). One is Defendant’s former Director of Human Resources and the other is a 

former Human Resources Manager. Doc. 11 at 4. Defendant alleges that both were 

involved in communications with Plaintiff regarding his claims and are key to the issues 

raised by Plaintiff. Id. This factor favors transfer, but only slightly. Although live 

testimony is preferable, the Court’s lack of subpoena power may be solved through the 

use of deposition or video testimony. Hisun, CV11-1918-PHX DGC, 2011 WL 5290149. 

 I. Relevant public policy of the forum state. 

 Arizona has a strong interest in ensuring that its citizens are compensated for their 

injuries. Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1193 (9th Cir. 2002). 

This factor weighs against transfer. 

 J. Differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums. 

 Given the recent advances in electronic communication and document production, 

discovery costs should be about the same in either forum. See Television Events & Mktg., 

Inc. v. Amcon Distrib. Co., 416 F. Supp. 2d 948, 971 (D. Haw. 2006). At this stage, the 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Court cannot conclude that travel and transportation costs will be greater if the case is 

tried in Alabama or Arizona. This factor is neutral. 

 K. Consideration of all the factors. 

 The Court concludes that this case should not be transferred. Plaintiff's choice of 

forum should not be disturbed unless Defendant has made “a strong showing of 

inconvenience.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843. Defendant has not met this burden. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for change of venue (Doc. 10) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 18th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01735-JJT Document 21 Filed 11/18/13 Page 6 of 6