Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00723/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00723-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amtrak
Defendant
Anthony Haswell
Plaintiff
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

Pursuant to Local Rule Civil 7.2(f), the Court finds this motion suitable for resolution

without oral argument.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Haswell, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

Amtrak, 

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-723-TUC-DCB (JM)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Defendant has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for transfer of venue of this

case brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to the

District of Columbia District.1

 For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after its independent review, deny Defendant's motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is a resident of Tucson, Arizona. Plaintiff's FOIA requests were directed to

Defendant's FOIA office in Washington, D.C., and it is undisputed that the documents in

question are also located there. The FOIA venue provision provides in relevant part:

On complaint, the district court of the United States in the

district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal

place of business, or in which the agency records are located, or

in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency

from withholding agency records and to order the production of

any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.

Case 4:05-cv-00723-DCB Document 10 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 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

2

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). Applying this provision to the instant case, venue is proper either

in this district or in the District of Columbia. 

The Court must therefore determine the most convenient forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404. The pertinent portion of that statute provides that, "[f]or the convenience of the

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." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

"Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for

transfer according to 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and

fairness.'" Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen. v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). The courts have expounded on the requirements of

section 1404(a) and have identified multiple factors to be weighed to determine whether

transfer is appropriate in a particular case. Among the factors to be considered are: (1) the

plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the convenience of witnesses and the parties; (3) the

familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of access to evidence; and (5)

the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330

U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir.

2000). As the moving party, Defendant bears the burden of showing that the inconvenience

of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E.&J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P.S.p. A., 899

F.Supp 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). 

Because Plaintiff is an Arizona resident and Defendant is located in Washington,

D.C., it is obviously more convenient to each party to litigate this matter in their respective

resident districts. Typically, deference is accorded to a plaintiff's chosen forum. Pacific Car

and Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968). However, this deference

should be balanced against both the extent of a defendant's contacts with the chosen forum

and of plaintiff's contacts, including those relating to a plaintiff's cause of action. Id. "If the

operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original selection and that forum has

no particular interest in the parties or the subject matter, [a] plaintiff's choice is only entitled

Case 4:05-cv-00723-DCB Document 10 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 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

3

to minimal consideration." Id. Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's forum selection is not

entitled to deference because it is outweighed by considerations of convenience to the

witnesses and the interests of justice.

To demonstrate an inconvenience to witnesses, the moving party must identify

relevant witnesses, state their location and describe their testimony and its relevance." A.J.

Industries, Inc. v. United States District Court, 503 F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974). Here, these

considerations carry little weight. Defendant, in its reply, notes that, "[i]t is uncontroverted

that Amtrak, all of the documents at issue, and all of the employees involved in determining

whether they should be disclosed to Plaintiff are located it the District of Columbia." Reply,

p. 4. Facially, these considerations strongly support the transfer of this action to the District

of Columbia. However, in the context of this case, they are much less persuasive. As

Plaintiff points out, and Defendant does not directly dispute, in all likelihood, this case will

be decided on summary judgment. Plaintiff's position is supported by the United States

Department of Justice FOIA Guide, which in pertinent part states: 

Summary judgment is the procedural vehicle by which nearly all

FOIA cases are resolved, because "in FOIA cases there is rarely

any factual dispute . . . only a legal dispute over how the law is

to be applied to the documents at issue." Motions for summary

judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which provides, in part, that the "judgment sought

shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact." So long as there are no material facts at issue

and no facts "susceptible to divergent inferences bearing upon

an issue critical to disposition of the case," summary judgment

is appropriate. Of course, an agency's failure to respond to a

FOIA request in a timely manner does not, by itself, justify an

award of summary judgment to the requester.

FOIA Reference Guide (2005), http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/litigation.htm#judgment (last

visited March 6, 2006) (footnotes omitted). A summary judgment motion will not necessitate

travel of Defendant's witnesses to Arizona. Their testimony, if necessary, can be provided

by affidavit. Thus, the convenience of witnesses in this case is largely irrelevant.

Additionally, the documents at issue are not voluminous. Plaintiff is not seeking additional

Case 4:05-cv-00723-DCB Document 10 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 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

4

documents, but is disputing only the propriety of Defendant's redaction of the 248 pages of

records previously produced. The burden of providing these few pages to the Court for

review is minimal and does not support the transfer of this action. Cf. Mobil Corp. v. Sec.

& Exch. Comm'n, 550 F.Supp. 67, 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (Court found that location of 7,000

documents supported transfer).

Defendant also urges the Court to transfer this matter based on the interests of judicial

efficiency. First, Defendant asserts that District of D.C. was established as an "all purpose

forum" for adjudicating FOIA claims and it has developed "substantial experience" in

adjudicating such claims. Motion, pp. 4-5. While Congress did include the District of D.C.

in the list of appropriate fora for FOIA claims, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), it did so for two

reasons:

first, to provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to bring

complaints in a court which has "substantial expertise" in

working with the FOIA; second, to provide a forum convenient

to the defendant "since attorneys in the Justice Department in

Washington, D.C., will have been involved in the initial FOIA

determinations at the administrative level.

In re Scott, 709 F.2d 717, 720 (D.C. App. 1983) (quoting S.Rep. No. 854 93d Cong., 2d Sess.

12-13 (1974)). While it certainly would have been more convenient for the Defendant to

litigate this action in the District of Columbia, Plaintiff elected not to seize the "opportunity"

to do so. To now transfer this action despite the Plaintiff's election to file in Arizona would

render nugatory the section 552 providing for the filing of such actions in the district in

which the complainant resides. The Court does not therefore find this point persuasive in

supporting the transfer.

Defendant also cites as a vital consideration the relative case loads of the respective

districts. In Ferri v. United States Department of Justice, 441 F.Supp. 404 (M.D.Penn.

1977), the court considered this factor and found that "in light of docket congestion" and

other factors, the FOIA case before them should be transferred back to the District of

Columbia, where the plaintiff had originally filed the action. Id. at 406-407. However, in

Case 4:05-cv-00723-DCB Document 10 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 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

5

In re Scott, the District of Columbia District indicated that docket congestion was an

unacceptable rationale for transfer. There, the court stated that 

[a] transferor court should act in response to considerations,

apart from the court's own convenience, for rejecting a plaintiff's

forum choice. Inconvenience to the court is a relevant factor

but, standing alone, it should not carry the day.

709 F.2d at 721. As discussed above, inconvenience will inure to the Plaintiff should the

matter be transferred to D.C. and to the Defendant should the matter remain in this district.

All other factors being equal, the Court will not rely on docket congestion as a reason to

deprive Plaintiff of pursuing this action in his chosen forum.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule Civil

72.2(a)(1), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the

record, DENY Defendant's Motion to Transfer [Doc. No. 3].

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-723-TUCDCB. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 7th day of March, 2006.

Case 4:05-cv-00723-DCB Document 10 Filed 03/07/06 Page 5 of 5